Hans-Georg Lundahl! Let me ask you a question do you think the Magisterium has the Authority to give Catholics the option to wear veils or not? This is the hatchet job I'm talking about!

Hans-Georg Lundahl show me the test patterns that St Robert Bellarmine did with our satellites please!

Hans-Georg Lundahl so do you think individuals handling data as far as our satellites go are dishonest?

Hans-Georg Lundahl a parallel would be an airplane wing are you saying that in space there's air like in a test tunnel or you can produce wind? Is there wind in space my friend?

Hans-Georg Lundahl are you trying to tell me with the technology we have today our scientist can't look through the eyes of a satellite and determine whether the Sun is rotating or the earth is rotating around the Sun?

Hans-Georg Lundahl as you can see I'm not well versed in all of this geocentrism stuff but my main complaint with Robert isn't that far from Karls, and that is Robert like so many Traditionalists view the Church as being Modernist in every area that they don't like! And Robert is on record as going so far as stating the Magisterium is wrong in areas such as Veiling! The last time I checked I don't believe Robert Sungenis is Living Authority the Church! And just for the record I have absolutely nothing against Veiling. Only if someone who is in favor of Veiling does so by claiming the Magisterium is in error. Which is what Robert is doing...Pax

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"do you think the Magisterium has the Authority to give Catholics the option to wear veils or not"

I think St Thomas answered that one. In Churches where the discipline of St Paul has been kept up, it should be kept up. In Churches where it has disappeared, it need not be kept up.

Of course the Magisterium should NOT generally disband it.

"show me the test patterns that St Robert Bellarmine did with our satellites please!"

Presumes one of the points disputed here, namely whether one could or could not get same result from opposites adapting in opposite directions. I have a question for you on this one:

Show me where in their calculations modern physicists have taken into account that God could be turning the Universe around us and that angels could be moving stars and planets.

"so do you think individuals handling data as far as our satellites go are dishonest?"

Where exactly did I either say or imply that?

I asked how that view point could POSSIBLY be of more certainty than the one God provided for 7 billion pairs of eyes and 7 billion pairs of inner ears.

Fly around a tower in a helicopter.

Film the tower from the helicopter. On the film the tower will be seen as turning around, does not mean the tower is dancing and does not mean the film makers were dishonest either. All it means is flying around a tower in a helicopter is NOT a way to find out whether it moves or not.

"a parallel would be an airplane wing are you saying that in space there's air like in a test tunnel or you can produce wind? Is there wind in space my friend?"

A wind of air no. A wind of aether, yes.

You know, the substance in which ligh is a wave. The substance every modern cosmologist was all of a sudden forced to deny after Michelson Morley experiment.

An aether of graviational pulls moving past the satellite (all the time) would - if Sungenis is right, I have another model in reserve - have the same effect as the satellite flying through it.

Now, this one is one I haven't worked through totally, and I might be wrong to trust Sungenis on this one. However, that is not fatal to Geocentrism.

My other one would be that spirits are keeping geostationary satellites in place.

Precisely as poltergeists do on a smaller scale and the angels carrying heavenly bodies on a larger scale.

I am not writing off Sungenis' explanation until he has had a chance to answer at what height "the aether wind of gravitational pulls" would be enough to keep a body in place and at what lower height it would simply fall down. And why.

But that is physics beyond my level.

"are you trying to tell me with the technology we have today our scientist can't look through the eyes of a satellite and determine whether the Sun is rotating or the earth is rotating around the Sun?"

Obviously a resounding YES, I am telling you that they cannot.

It is not a question of technology, but of correctness of viewpoint.

They have paid millions to take a view that proves our Earth turning around its axis as much as a helicopter view would prove a tower was dancing.

As to your last point, I will have to refer that one to Pope Michael.

Obviously, he will not be against the Geocentrism stuff in Sungenis, as such. He is, as known, a Geocentric.

I would say that what you are referring to as Magisterium may well be wrong about taking interest, since contradicting the Magisterium of Councils of Vienne in 1313 and of Lateran V in 1515. Both counted as valid ecumenical, on the Latin side of 1054, whether you count Vatican II as such or not.

Ross Earl Hoffmann

Hans-Georg Lundahl that's not what I asked; I asked you a very specific question do you believe the current Magisterium has the Authority to give Catholics the option to wear Veils?! This is a very important question because it will tell me whether you accept the Authority of the Catholic Church today in all matters! Robert Sungenis doesn't!

Hans, now don't misunderstand what I'm saying I have absolutely no problem with Catholics wearing Veils it doesn't bother me one bit I think it's very reverent and I have no problem with reverence! But that's not at all what I'm talking about and I think you know it! And I think you know this is the biggest concern with everybody in this thread it all has to do with Authority and who has it and who doesn't!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My answer is that the question of veils is decided by tradition.

It is decided in a manner Sungenis may be unaware of, namely local diversity, but making the option NOT to wear headcovering universal would go against St Paul. And the reference to angels involved.

My answer to your last is no, who on earth has and who hasn't authority is NOT the main question priming over every other question. That would be an idolatrous position. As Mgr Williamson said (and I believe he is still not a Geocentric, so he is wrong on astronomy): truth primes authority.

In any apparent conflict between apparent authority and known truth, truth comes first.

Ross Earl Hoffmann - one for you.

On another thread you stated that having recourse to Tradition instead of Bible "against Magisterium" is even worse.

Do you stand by that blasphemous proposal?

Ross Earl Hoffmann

Hans-Georg Lundahl so if I'm understanding you correctly matters such as Veiling is off limits for the Magisterium? Tell me this my friend, who now then is the keeper and guardian of Tradition if not the Magisterium!? And what else is off limits to the Magisterium?

Hans-Georg Lundahl as far as any blasphemous proposal I would have to see everything that I said but this is pretty much the position I take do you disagree with it?

Authority in the Church is living authority, by real people (the popes) who can settle real questions in real time. As Newman pointed out, it is inconceivable that there could be so great a difference in dispensation between the first Christians and ourselves that they should have a living infallible authority (Christ) and we should not. The problem with Traditionalism (that is, Tradition made into an "ism", which is to say, in effect, an ideology) is precisely the same as the problem with what the Protestants did with Scripture (one might change the name "sola scriptura" to "Scripturism"). In brief, the problem is that it elevates (what appears to some to be) a self-evident body of data over a living authority.

The result is the same: private judgement. In fact, elevating Tradition over the living authority of the Holy See is even worse than elevating Scripture over that authority. At least with Scripture, there is some way that everyone can identify a stable source of data. With Tradition, this is far more difficult, and, in fact, it cannot be done apart from the living authority of the Church—any more than the Canon of Scripture could have been established by anything other than that same authority.

A phrase over used when giving a parody of what someone just said. Like you are doing here.

"matters such as Veiling is off limits for the Magisterium?"

Not at all "matters such as veiling", but rather measures such as in the matter of veiling the measure would be to declare it universally licit for the entire Church to ignore St Paul's position on veiling.

Note, in a context where a woman wearing the veil would expose herself as Christian to Communists and thereby attract persecution, yes, it is within capacity of magisterium to say that St Paul's position does not strictly oblige her at such a price. Especially if adding that an extra prayer to the guardian angel be said (considering the context of what St Paul said about veils, revisited thanks to God first and foremost and after God Rob Skiba and Ethiopian Book of Henoch). At least I suppose so and would not consider a bishop obviously heretical for allowing her not to wear the veil in such circumstances. If he is, that is beyond my paygrade.

The question is not what subject matter is off limits for the Magisterium, the question is what the Magisterium can do about what falls within its limits.

Contradicting the Bible is off limits. Contradicting Universal Tradition is off limits.

Hence my referral to St Thomas "does not oblige where fallen into disuse" about precisely this matter. Which is something other than saying "Magisterium can say universally it does not oblige".

"Tell me this my friend, who now then is the keeper and guardian of Tradition if not the Magisterium!? And what else is off limits to the Magisterium?"

"Authority in the Church is living authority, by real people (the popes) who can settle real questions in real time."

A question already settled is not a real question.

"As Newman pointed out, it is inconceivable that there could be so great a difference in dispensation between the first Christians and ourselves that they should have a living infallible authority (Christ) and we should not."

Insofar as new questions really arise, either the Church has - in Pope Michael, as I believe - or will have (if I am wrong) a living person to settle them.

Raising a question already settled on "no" and hoping it will be "yes" next time is not always wrong, when it comes to individuals, but definitely bad manners when it comes to principles.

Admitting that this question - to return to Heliocentrism being licit or not - was settled with "no" on a very high level in 1633 and then pretending it has been settled into a yes because some apparent Popes hold that as their opinion, that raises for instance either a question on whether they are Popes, or on whether their followers therein are honest.

"The problem with Traditionalism (that is, Tradition made into an "ism", which is to say, in effect, an ideology) is precisely the same as the problem with what the Protestants did with Scripture (one might change the name "sola scriptura" to "Scripturism"). In brief, the problem is that it elevates (what appears to some to be) a self-evident body of data over a living authority."

In what manner "what appears to be a self evident body of data"?

Trent did not say nothing in Scripture was self evident and did not deny self evident portions of Scripture are above the potential of changing ones mind for the Magisterium.

The Latin "tenet" in one definition does not so much mean "holds" (i e at a given moment, without reference to its past) as "has held and still holds" - which is why the confession rephrased into "tenuit atque tenet" to propfit those not speaking a Romance language.

If you hold otherwise and would have that not pass for a blasphemy, how about showing the relevant passage in acts of the magisterium and that of the magisterium as accepted by both parties.

I have as a homeschooler (very part time) and teacher (also only very part time) a good reason to detest the novelties in the concept of education as per 1965:

By such dispositions of submission to the doctrine delivered or witnessed by the consent of the primitive Fathers, might be quickly taken away the unhappy differences in points of religion betwixt us, and all pretended reformers, who, by setting up their private judgment against the authority of the Catholic Church, have brought in these differences.

Ross Earl Hoffman

Hans-Georg Lundahl maybe I'm making this too difficult so let's cut to the chase as a Catholic this is very simple to me I simply obey my Bishop as long as my Bishop is obeying the Magisterium! And fortunately where I live I haven't encountered a Bishop or any Catholic priests in my Dioceses that is teaching anything that conflicts with the current Magisterium! Now I'm curious do you think Robert Sungenis or you yourself submit completely to the Magisterium and Vatican II in all areas?

Hans Georg Lundahl

"I simply obey my Bishop as long as my Bishop is obeying the Magisterium!"

For my part: I simply obey my Bishop/priest/pope as long as my... - the person - is obeying the Magisterium, and as long as that Magisterium is obeying that of the past.

When I converted, I did not read all documents of Vatican II. Lumen Gentium seemed acceptable at the time.

BUT if I had wanted an up to date magisterium with no obligation of obeying that of past centuries back to Christ, I might just as well have stayed Lutheran.

Sungenis is NOT defying any definite articulated teaching of Vatican II.

I am, but do not consider it Magisterium.

I have since read a bit more of Vatican II, it seems to me quite a bit of Eustace Clarence Scrubb as an angry young Atheist. With some halfways Christian-like mollifications.

If we quit the game of setting us each up as an example to the other, you have NOT answered my challenge in what exact manner what I am doing (or what Vatican II rejecters are doing) is culpable of "private judgement" in any sense traditionally condemned by the Church. Newman once was so shy of private judgement, he would not even convert, since the act of converting implied "private judgement". Obviously that is not what the Catholic Church condemned.

Ross Earl Hoffmann

Hans-Georg Lundahl! Well my friend what worries me a little bit about what I'm reading here is when you say if I wanted an up-to-date Magisterium with no obligation of obeying that of past centuries back to Christ I think you really are staying Lutheran that sounds exactly what Martin Luther said?! The church isn't designed that way as Catholics we have the joy and the privilege of having living Tradition; its obvious you disagree with the link that I posted!

Hans-Georg Lundahl this article is very well written and I think it covers my position and my concerns with Robert Sungenis and from what I'm reading here, more than likely you my friend!

The result is the same: private judgement. In fact, elevating Tradition over the living authority of the Holy See is even worse than elevating Scripture over that authority. At least with Scripture, there is some way that everyone can identify a stable source of data. With Tradition, this is far more difficult, and, in fact, it cannot be done apart from the living authority of the Church—any more than the Canon of Scripture could have been established by anything other than that same authority.

The point, ultimately, is that the Church is governed by a living authority, and all appeals to Scripture, tradition, emotional attachment or personal preference (however sound and certain these appeals appear to those who make them) must ultimately bow to that living authority or cease to be Catholic.

[Links to same article]

Hans-Georg Lundahl I took a minute to reread some of the things you stated can you help me understand what you meant by "I will have to refer that one to Pope Michael?" Who's Pope Michael?

Hans Georg Lundahl

" I wanted an up-to-date Magisterium with no obligation of obeying that of past centuries back to Christ I think you really are staying Lutheran that sounds exactly what Martin Luther said?! "

Not at all.

I enjoyed "priests" descending from the Petri brothers who were disciples of Martin Luther when I was in the Swedish state Church.

They were very much up to date.

Luther did very much NOT complain about Catholic Magisterium being up to date.

It was Luther who set the new ideas back then and Vatican II which does so now.

And I am enemy of his new ideas from back then and therefore of the new ideas of Vatican II more recently.

"this article is very well written"

It is also about Mass Liturgy.

First of all I think Novus Ordo is sometimes at least valid. Second, it was written in somewhat bad faith. Allowing Mozarabic rite and allowing Novus Ordo are from the pov of Tridentine Liturgy two very different things, and not JUST because they are temporally on opposite sides. Mozarabic rite and Gallican rite had the same Canon Missae. Novus Ordo keeps a truncated and modified version of it in Eucharistic Prayer I.

By contrast, the issue we are here discussing is rather Biblical Inerrancy.

An issue where St. Pius V and John Calvin were not opposed. If either, it was rather John Calvin who departed from it.

"The point, ultimately, is that the Church is governed by a living authority, and all appeals to Scripture, tradition, emotional attachment or personal preference (however sound and certain these appeals appear to those who make them) must ultimately bow to that living authority or cease to be Catholic."

That was NOT the case for Pope St Pius V.

He did NOT say Scripture and Tradition had to bow down to Living Magisterium. He said the Living Magisterium is necessary to keep alive the Tradition that goes with Scripture. Which is another thing altogether.

As to either emotional attachment or personal preference neither Catholic nor even Protestant side back then was idiotic enough to put that in the balance on a doctrinal matter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes but WHO is Pope Michael to you? Or maybe I should ask how did Michael get involved in this discussion?

Hans-Georg Lundahl please show me a quote or quotes directly from Pope St Pius V on these matters.

Hans-Georg Lundahl the articles about Authority and who has it and who doesn't! St Francis is leading the Church today and he has the Authority, St Pius V is nowhere around! Show me where St Pius V stated as Catholics in the future we must follow him and only him for the rest of the history of the Church.

Hans Georg Lundahl

How he got involved in this discussion? By being probably the living Magisterium. How did St Francis of Sales know St Pius V rather than next door neighbour Calvin was that? Just the Roman locality? Or persistence of or deviance from doctrine recalled since before the split?

I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

"St Francis is leading the Church today and he has the Authority, St Pius V is nowhere around!"

Is "Pope Francis" now "St Francis" to you?

St Pius V is in Heaven, even if you consider that as nowhere.

He - and his predecessor Pius IV - did NOT bind all Catholics to him and him alone, but very clearly to the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers.

THAT is what St Robert Bellarmine thought applied to Geocentrism. And Galileo thought science was off limits.

No, it is not Pope Pius IV ALONE. It is not even Pope St Pius V ALONE. It is the TRADITION behind them.

Your arguments about Liturgy may or may not have the value you feel they have, but Geocentrism is a question of Doctrine. Not of discipline. And the lifting of the ban on Heliocentrism has directly so far concerned only disciplinary level in the Anfossi-Settele affair.

Neither Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus NOR (even less) Benedict XV in In Praeclara* Summorum made any direct act of lifting the ban of 1633.

*Correcting from "Preaclara."

Ross Earl Hoffman

a) Hans-Georg Lundahl so you think Pope Michael is probably the living Magisterium? But yet you're questioning Pope Francis because he's not St. Francis?!

b) Hans-Georg Lundahl as for the rest of what you said I can only reply again with this:

Authority in the Church is living authority, by real people (the popes) who can settle real questions in real time. As Newman pointed out, it is inconceivable that there could be so great a difference in dispensation between the first Christians and ourselves that they should have a living infallible authority (Christ) and we should not. The problem with Traditionalism (that is, Tradition made into an "ism", which is to say, in effect, an ideology) is precisely the same as the problem with what the Protestants did with Scripture (one might change the name "sola scriptura" to "Scripturism"). In brief, the problem is that it elevates (what appears to some to be) a self-evident body of data over a living authority.

The result is the same: private judgement. In fact, elevating Tradition over the living authority of the Holy See is even worse than elevating Scripture over that authority. At least with Scripture, there is some way that everyone can identify a stable source of data. With Tradition, this is far more difficult, and, in fact, it cannot be done apart from the living authority of the Church—any more than the Canon of Scripture could have been established by anything other than that same authority.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"As Newman pointed out, it is inconceivable that there could be so great a difference in dispensation between the first Christians and ourselves that they should have a living infallible authority (Christ) and we should not."

I have already answered that.

He has even answered that himself. To him it was inconceivable that the living authority could contradict its own earlier decisions - even in the persons of other, earlier popes. But especially impossible was it to him to conceive a living authority that could contradict Scripture on an obvious level of obvious historic meaning.

Of course, a true living authority cannot contradict Scripture on non-obvious levels either - even when it seems to do so. But a minimum requirement is not contradicting Scripture on an obvious level. Not saying Isaac was born when Abraham was fifty and Sarah was forty, for instance. That was to him a non-negotiable minimum.

Besides, Newman is not a Church Father. He is a good apologetic resource in reply to Anglicans of High Church and Evangelical sensibilities. But I am neither.

"In brief, the problem is that it elevates (what appears to some to be) a self-evident body of data over a living authority."

I have already answered that too.

Either body of data is in its true sense above the authority other than the person of Christ.

There was a public revelation. It has closed since the last Apostle left earthly life. Christ who had been speaking to Adam and to Moses before His Incarnation could tell the Apostles what He had meant verbally by such and such a thing and also what as God He had meant by letting such and such a thing happen to the persons.

He gave them a crash course during forty days. Those forty days are over. The twitter account Pontifex is NOT an equivalent today of it.

Our access to the authority Christ exercised during that crash course of OT exegesis (He did not leave His Church "without a book", but with a complete OT and an exegesis thereof which is not identic to the Talmudic one) is through the TRADITION the Apostles attending it handed down to their successors.

This was also defined at the Holy Vatican Council of 1869-70.

I missed you second to last one. [Marked a) above.] Seeing the way you twist arguments parodically, it is a waste of time to argue further with YOU, Ross Earl Hoffman.

Ross Earl Hoffman

Hans-Georg Lundahl thanks for your time and your "opinions" my friend but I think I'll stick but the Catholic Church! And the 'Living Tradition' we find in the Church today! It's only your 'opinion' that the Church today contradicts Scripture and Tradition historically! And I believe the article I showed you is absolutely correct in many ways you're acting just as protestants act! When you start rejecting the Authority of the Magisterium like the SSPX and worst, for example you basically enter Protestant waters! And I still haven't figured out what you were talking about with Pope Michael? Pax

And as you mentioned John Henry Cardinal Newman, you forgot to state which of his texts you are referring to.

Apart from his not being a Church Father I think you are citing him wrong.

Ross Earl Hoffman

Hans-Georg Lundahl and I'm a little confused as to why you keep thinking John Henry Newman is going to side with you what you're actually doing is assuming hear correctly reading John Henry Newman I believe you're totally incorrect the soon to be saying would never side against the living Ford of the church he would have sided instantly with Pope John Paul II rather than Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre! Newman proved that living Authority was essential for him that's why he converted from the Anglican movement!

Hans Georg Lundahl

His motives for conversion are one thing.

But before the conversion to Rome, there was a conversion to Historic Christianity.

And therein is also a very definite confession of tradition.

Do you recall the occasion on which he came to consider the Anglican position inconsistent and impious?

The Anglican Archbishop of Jerusalem. Because it destroyed the argument "Rome cannot be in Canterbury". But also because it defied the ban on making a see for the Jews - since those were a majority among Anglicans of Jerusalem.

Think that man would have accepted someone more comfy with rabbis than certain Trad bishops? Think again!

(I am referring to the story he gave in Apologia, have not the page ready to hand).

You have STILL not given a reference to what passage on Living Aurthority you are citing. Not that he didn't use the phrase, he did. But he clearly stated it was tied to Bible and Tradition and not sovereignly baove them. Yes, after his conversion. In fact after 1870 or in that year after the Definition of Infallibility.

Quite some time ago, at Catholic Answers Forums, I wrote about whether we have to be agnostic about whether the Earth orbits the Sun or the Sun the Earth.

I was responding to a claim by Bob Sungenis, who has written that, if we can work up an equation that explains how A orbits B, then we equally can work up an equation that shows how B orbits A.

That's fine, I said, until we try to apply those equations to real-life situations. Either equation may account for apparent motion, but only one will take into account gravity. When you do that--that is, when you go beyond mere math and into physics--then only the equation that explains how the Earth orbits the Sun works.

My comment was the impetus for a long refutation of Sungenis's ideas by Alec MacAndrew, a physicist. Sungenis, who is innocent of physics, now has given a long reply to MacAndrew. A friend brought the reply to my attention. He thought I would be interested because my name appears in it. It does: 22 times, mostly in passing.

Early on, Sungenis writes, "It appears that MacAndrew has been hired to answer for Keating." Hired by whom? Not by me--I don't even know MacAndrew--and not by David Palm, at whose website, Geocentrism Debunked, the MacAndrew essay appears.

Sungenis says, "Keating and Palm are Catholic, but know very little science. MacAndrew has a Ph.D. in physics, but is an avowed atheist."

As I said, I don't know MacAndrew; perhaps he is an atheist. His irreligion might have impelled him to tackle Sungenis's arguments, but MacAndrew's essay is entirely in terms of physics, not of metaphysics or theology.

Sungenis has no degree in science--not a Ph.D. and not even a bachelor's degree--but he thinks it necessary to discredit my knowledge of science. (He would have much difficulty in saying that MacAndrew, with a Ph.D. in physics, knows nothing about physics.)

Sungenis writes: "Karl Keating knows nothing about dynamics or coordinate transforms. All he knows is what he has been taught by the science textbooks in high school."

This is an interesing example of fantasizing, since Sungenis knows full well what I have written in reply to him before about my educational background. I'll repeat that here, so you can judge whether his characterization of me in the preceding paragraph is correct.

Of course I had some science in high school--didn't we all?--but that wasn't where my science education ended. My undergraduate work was done at the San Diego campus of the University of California. At the time it had three constituent colleges. I was resident and registered in Revelle College, which was the science school. It boasted half a dozen Nobel Prize laureates. With MIT and CalTech, UCSD was one of the three top schools for math in the country. I was a math major.

It was a requirement to take a lot of hard science courses, particularly physics. One such course was directly on point regarding Sungenis's hobbyhorse, geocentrism. The course was a mathematical investigation of the Ptolemaic theory and the geocentric theories that flowed from it. We used the actual ancient data and worked through complex equations to see whether, with ever finer data, the geocentric theory "saved the appearances." (The answer was No.)

The professor for that course was Curtis Wilson, then and now considered to be the top American expert on Kepler and his theories. It would not have been possible to take such a course from a more knowledgeable man. (So impressed was I by Wilson's course that I have retained his course materials--mainly mimeographed sheets--for more than four decades.)

Back in those days, I could do the calculus. I can't today, having been away from it for too long. But I can spot a mathematics fraud, expecially one as blatant as Sungenis. For one thing, he has no sense of what calculus is. He says, "Calculus is really nothing more than a hypersensitive arithmetic." All one can do when coming upon such a comment is to shakes one's head. You might as well say that the Pieta is nothing more than a hypersensitive clay model done by a child.

If you have a decent science or math background and read through Sungenis's rebuttal to MacAndrew, it becomes clear that Sungenis simply can't do the math. He refutes MacAndrew by calling him an atheist. He refutes me by claiming my science education ended in high school.

It's bizarre but understandable. What else can he do, having no competence in math or science himself?

RV

Thank you! Solving the gravitational potential gives an obvious solution -- the sun has the central location. -- Psalm 90:12 "Teach us [ed: especially Dr. Sungenis] to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom."

MK

Modern science has put the earth at the center of the observable universe, however dubious that may be. What lies beyond the edge of the universe is anyone's guess. It's all speculation for the most part anyway.

ENP

Fascinating, Karl. I sympathize with any man impelled by circumstances to answer not just idiots, but utter rubes in the subject at hand. We do so only because what it is laughably obvious to us might, in these troubled times, actually hurt the innocent if some one, somewhere, does not reply.

Jonathas Arringtonus (hereafter JA)

Wait, after reading any portion of his "Galileo" volume wherein the arguments from Physics are contained you can actually argue that he knows no math or science? Perhaps his co-author did ALL of that as a subtle ghost-writer, but you're going to need a better argument than that IPSE DIXIT + AD HOMINEM, in my opinion.

As an aside,how can a fair number of physicists (not to mention those in prominent positions teaching the astronomical sciences) be convinced of the geocentric arguments if they're so patently absurd and devoid of any proof or mathematical consistency? I ask this in all sincerity, Mr. Keating.

DMW

But his movie will be all over the nation in 1 theater!

RS

I have proven that the world is flat, incredibly, using two-dimensional modeling techniques. I challenge anyone to disprove my findings utilizing length and width alone.

JP

[JA], they can't. There isn't any "fair number" of physicists; there are zero. I've got a master's in physics myself from a school that had a center on relativity run by the same Jack Wheeler who wrote the book that Sungenis cites as his scientific basis, and like MacAndrew, he sure didn't accept that all reference frames were equivalent and indistinguishable. In other words, Sungenis was at best incredibly ignorant when he wrote the book, and when MacAndrew pointed out the error in his math *citing Wheeler*, Sungenis became either a liar or someone so deluded he can no longer function with sufficient intellectual capacity for rational debate. The fact that Sungenis published this at the end of Jack Wheeler's life, Wheeler having spent a good part of his career debunking pseudo-science like Sungenis's, is no coincidence. If Wheeler were alive today, he would take Sungenis to the woodshed, just as MacAndrew did.

David Palm

[JA], I am unaware of a single physicist in a prominent position teaching astronomical sciences who holds to strict geocentrism, viz. that the entire universe revolves around a stationary earth once every twenty-four hours. Do you know any? If not, shouldn't that say something about the viability of the view scientifically? They're not all atheists, you know, there are many physicists of faith. And they don't reject strict geocentrism because they've been hookwinked by some atheistic conspiracy. They reject it because scientifically-speaking it's a massive exercise in special pleading.

I always want to call him."Jack" because he was "J.A. Wheeler" in the papers, but he went by Johnny. Of course, I didn't know him personally, so I wasn't on a first name basis!

Karl Keating

JA: I've seen Bob's book, and, yes, it has equations in it. He credits his co-author with the most equation-intensive parts of the book, but I don't think Bob actually understands most of the math, no matter which part of the book it's in. He cuts and pastes from others but gives no indication that he can "do" the math himself. He leaves readers with an impression that he can take pencil and paper and work through differential equations and the like, but I see nothing in the book that suggests he can.

A parallel might be the writer whose book contains lots of material in German. He provides translations, letting readers think he's read the originals when, in fact, he hasn't--but he has to give that impression if readers are to think of him as an authority. You won't be taken seriously as a writer on Goethe's "Faust" unless you can handle the German, for example.

Bob can't handle the math.

WG

JA, I think I remember reading that Sungenis' co-author Robert Bennett did a lot of the heavy lifting for him on the math and/or science in his Galileo volume. I remember because that was part of the scandal regarding Sungenis' "PhD". Bennett was also the supervisor for his "PhD". (Hello?)

And no one ever explained how his "PhD" was in THEOLOGY, but the thesis that became Galileo Was Wrong makes the SCIENTIFIC case for geocentrism.

JP

Karl, the only caveat I would add is that there is certainly a legitimate use of secondary sources in a field in which someone lacks primary experience, as when someone is engaged in cross-disciplinary work. But this isn't even such a case, as the misbegotten reliance on Wheeler's seminal work demonstrates.

WG

Karl Keating - I found Sungenis' article but I got tired after the first 15 pages. All of his papers seem to be 50+ pages. It's like he thinks arguments are won by who writes the most or something.

Anyway, I thought it was strange for him to come right out of the gate saying that you hired MacAndrew. Who just throws something like that out there without evidence? I don't remember him being so paranoid and into conspiracy theories back in the day. Do you know if he was always like this?

I mean, I guess I could understand privately wondering if you or someone contacted MacAndrew. But to actually say, in a published paper, that you must have hired him? Besides being rash, it seems a bit self-important to immediately jump to the conclusion that someone takes you so seriously that they felt the need to go out and pay someone to answer you.

And to go after MacAndrew out of the gate because he's supposedly an atheist? Since when is the accuracy of a person's math or science dependent upon his religious faith? And where is the proof that MacAndrew "despises" the Catholic faith?

I mean, come on. This is not how a serious scientist behaves. This is what pop controversialists and snake oil salesmen do to soften up their audiences.

But you should definitely go to Confession, Karl. Super-Catholic Sungenis has pronounced that you are a Modernist. Save your soul, man.

Karl Keating

WG: Bob doesn't appreciate that a Modernist (capital T) is different from a modernist (lowercase t). The former term refers to a theological stance of about a century ago. The latter term is used more broadly, particularly in literature. You could say that T. S. Eliot was a modernist, but he wasn't a Modernist. When Bob calls someone a "modernist," it just means "I don't like this guy." Coming from him, the epithet has no force.

RS - I think you're probably onto it. That must be how he sees it. Strange.

AM

Suggesting someone hired someone else to make an argument is a red herring and/or ad hominem. Does the argument hold weight or doesn't it? That's all that matters.

MS

Such a waste of time arguing with Philistines.

NG

Mr Keating, given your background on the matter and "dialogue" with them, Id love to see your public contributions organized on a blog or such; wading and mining through forums is tiresome something fierce. there's a popular lay apostolate and several figures in and from my diocese that are adamant on the "necessity" of agnosticism on "the science" and it breaks my heart as a convert to see productive fruit of Catholicism like the scientific venture so *gnostically* maltreated.

WG

NG - there's already a website up that has a lot of information dealing with science and the Church related to geocentrism. The person who published the site has commented on some of Karl's posts (David Palm).

First I want to stress here that I am a sinner, and someone attempting to be a decent catecumen, as im studying to be Catholic. Now that I've got that it of the way. ..

I just don't get these passive aggressive attacks on people, Karl. Instead of having a decent argument and dialogue with folks that subscribe to traditional parts of our wonderful faith that differ from yours you continue to passive dog whistle statements to activate those that appear to have either personal hate or mental illness.

Last I checked, there wasn't a condemnation of geocentrism, so why continue to beat up on Bob Sungenis? Aren't you really just hoping for someone like Mark Shea to show up and bash him for questionable past statements, whereby your main attempt of character assassination gets fulfilled by someone else? Again, your hands stay somewhat clean.

I really wish you could go back to your good work of mopping up on protestant errors, like Pentecostal movements, Baptists, non denominational errors and the like. I greatly enjoyed Catholicism and Fundamentalism and this book was a classic, but there's no doubt you have personally taken a diifferent trajectory of late, going after fellow Catholics, with borderline obsessive ways and means.

As everyone knows, there are some bad apples in the bunch (I'm NOT stating Bob is one, btw) but this scandal being caused by harming the body of Christ's church is wrong. You are also encouraging behavior that would get one instantly banned from your Catholic Answers forums.

I suggest you check your motives, and decide whether these personal attacks, or open doorways for frothingly calumnous usual suspects (ie Mark Shea and is exceedingly harsh attacks on anybody not practicing his misguided version of catholicism.

WG

BSP Your righteous indignation at Karl Keating's supposed offenses and your deep worry about "scandal" rings more than a little hollow when the following gets a shrug and silence from you:

[Editor: Omitting here 11 quotes from Sungenis VIA waybackmachine/internet archive VIA Mark Shea - Sungenis stated he no longer takes a public stand for those, that is why they are no longer available where he put them.]

You can't get worked up enough to worry or complain about any of the above at all. But Karl Keating gets you all worked up enough to keep posting and posting about it?

I mean, come on.

Faithful Answers and the Inquisitors’ Anti-Charism of Discernment
July 19, 2013 By Mark Shea
[Not linking]

Karl Keating

BSP Esq: You want me to go back to my "good work of mopping up on Protestant errors," but you object to me (and to others) "mopping up" on Catholic errors--or, at least, on Catholics who promote error. I suspect you wouldn't mind if we critiqued liberal Catholics and their errors, but we're not supposed to critique Catholics who cause scandal by claiming the Church mandates a belief in geocentrism or Catholics who engage in relentless anti-Semitism, which is even more scandalous.

Ross Earl Hoffman

Karl hired MacAndrew; reminds me of the traditionalists blogs who start their papers, which end up being anti Novus Ordo and Vatican II by claiming Bugnini was a freemason! I never really read any farther because I saw through the smoke screen! I mean that was literally the first sentence, that Bugnini was a freemason, once they got that out of the way then they could continue....... I think Bob is trying to do the same hatchet job on Karl that traditionalists do to Bugnini!

So far by

June 16, and I come in June 23, first linking to a piece answering part of status as quoted above, then answering certain of the points otherwise made.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Here is perhaps where I should have posted my essay about your course (for Curtis):

"He says, "Calculus is really nothing more than a hypersensitive arithmetic." All one can do when coming upon such a comment is to shakes one's head. You might as well say that the Pieta is nothing more than a hypersensitive clay model done by a child."

Pietà is a hypersensitive clay model. Arithmetic does not imply "done by a child". I am lousy or rather non-extant at calculus, but if it is any good at all, it would be hypersensitive either arithmetic or geometry. And in either case not done by a child.

So, Robert Sungenis' quoted phrase does not imply he doesn't know the first thing, no. It might imply that to the Schibboleths and Jargons current at your faculty, but it does not imply that in good logic.

Unless you would say that calculus (I have some notion of what it is) is rather hypersensitive geometry by aritjmetic and algebraic (i e quasiarithmetic) means.

Karl Keating

The point is that calculus isn't arithmetic or geometry. They're all parts of math, but calculus isn't a fine-tuned version of the others.

AM

It's really hard to argue with the data of 50 years of space flight let alone 400 years of observations and calculations. Unless Sungenis is not only arguing using math (apparently) but also an incredibly implausible conspiracy theory? I suppose the space lasers thing might imply that he is...

Even so, if you're firing a rocket at any of the planets and you're not taking an alleged geocentric model of the solar system into account then your rocket is not going to end up taking fly-by pictures of those planets or orbiting them or landing on them which they clearly have.

It's just laughably implausible to explain that data any other way.

Ross Earl Hoffman

AM I'm not very bright when it comes to this stuff and to be honest I think I cheated my way through calculus my first year of college before I became a gutter drunk but I would think that our satellites alone should be able to determine whether the earth is stationary or not?!

Karl does any reputable scientist from NASA or anyone else in the science community give even an inkling that this geocentrism could be true?

[And for those who do not know him, Ross Earl Hoffmann is a Catholic Priest in communion with - as far as I know - Bergoglio. "Spiritualis homo iudicat omnes/omnia" and "Spiritualis homo non iudicatur", well that is perhaps not his line in these matters.]

AM

Ross Earl Hoffman satellite observations would be included in "400 years of observations." But there is nothing better to signify the correctness of your model like plotting a course and executing it and finding out whether the planet is where you expect it to be.

Ross Earl Hoffman

AM, I believe I caught the live- play by play- action when we landed on Mars just recently; the excitement of the NASA engineers was unbelievable; I couldn't help but think how incredibly brilliant these scientists are and how complicated this program really is(Landing on Mars) it seems absurd that they would miss something as elementary as who's at the center of the universe the Earth or the Sun?!

AM, I would think with a satellite in space orbiting the Earth or caught in the gravitational pull of the earth and staying stationary as everything else orbits around us whichever scenario is correct I would think the data coming from the satellite would be easily provable?!

Tom Trinko

Well one good argument to use is geostationary satellites--we use them all the time for pagers, live TV from overseas etc. They sit, pretty much stationary, above the same point on the earth.

Now if the earth isn't rotating then geostationary satellites aren't moving. But we all know that if put something up in the sky and release it it will fall to the earth. But since geostationary satellites aren't falling to the earth they have to be moving and hence the earth has to be rotating.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"The point is that calculus isn't arithmetic or geometry. They're all parts of math, but calculus isn't a fine-tuned version of the others."

A part of math that is NOT arithmetic and NOT geometry?

As a fan of Quadrivium, I disagree. Of course there is music and astronomy, but they are not pure math.

If I recall correctly the very little I have seen of calculus, it seems to be doing geometry with arithmetic means - plus doing it with further and further approxiimations, plus knowing how to make a shortcut for the further and further approximations.

Like calculating the area of a circle by cutting it up in finer and finer slices with limits within and without the circle. AND knowing the trick - which I do not - for how to shortcircuit the actual trouble of doing it into a formula that will sum up a same or roughly similar result.

If I am wrong, correct me.

But if I am right, calculus is an application of geometry and arithmetic at the time.

"It's really hard to argue with the data of 50 years of space flight let alone 400 years of observations and calculations."

Sungenis and I are at one on this one: NEITHER of these even remotely refutes Geocentrism as such.

My point already made is that it is not Ptolemaic system but Geocentricity we defend. BOTH space flight AND the 400 years of observations and calculations on top of previous pre-Copernican ones are compatible with Geocentrism in some form, but not the Ptolemaic form.

"Even so, if you're firing a rocket at any of the planets and you're not taking an alleged geocentric model of the solar system into account then your rocket is not going to end up taking fly-by pictures of those planets or orbiting them or landing on them which they clearly have."

You mean if Ptolemaic system were true that would not be the result.

I and Sungenis are using a modified Tychonian one (or perhaps rather two different modified Tychonian ones).

[I just found out through Sungenis that adding ellipses rather than circles for periodic orbits, like Kepler did, was already done by Riccioli. So one can date modified Tychonian in this respect back to Riccioli.]

"but I would think that our satellites alone should be able to determine whether the earth is stationary or not?!"

How could they possibly do that?

None of them are stationed at the very edge of the Universe. "Δως μοι πω στο και κινασω ταν γαν" - they are not standing in any fixed spot, so they are in no position to show a certainly truer picture of us than we can get of them.

Trusting God means among other things trusting He put us in a position where 7 billion paris of eyes and of inner ears are at least as likely to get a true picture of the Universe as manmade machines.

"Karl does any reputable scientist from NASA or anyone else in the science community give even an inkling that this geocentrism could be true?"

Do St Robert Bellarmine, Clavius, Riccioli count to you?

"it seems absurd that they would miss something as elementary as who's at the center of the universe the Earth or the Sun?!"

You have very obviously not worked through the geometric implications of Tychonian and Heliocentric cosmographies.

Besides Heliocentrics these days do NOT consider Sun is centre of Universe. At All.

"Anthony I would think with a satellite in space orbiting the Earth or caught in the gravitational pull of the earth and staying stationary as everything else orbits around us whichever scenario is correct I would think the data coming from the satellite would be easily provable?!"

The data coming from the satellite is as provable as the personnel handling it on earth is honest.

The data coming from the satellite does not guarantee that the satellite is not going to be a worse point of observing absolute stillness and motion than the earth.

"Now if the earth isn't rotating then geostationary satellites aren't moving. But we all know that if put something up in the sky and release it it will fall to the earth. But since geostationary satellites aren't falling to the earth they have to be moving and hence the earth has to be rotating."

Robert Sungenis would answer they are relatively moving as it is really aether that is moving around them.

A parallel would be an aeroplane wing. It lifts both in a test tunnel when air is blown onto its fore and in air when it is itself moving.

No answer

for 24 hours, and I continue answering:

Hans Georg Lundahl

WG - I saw your list and it was from a post by Mark Shea, quoting items from a site Sungenis took down via web archive. Not one of them linking to Robert Sungenis' present site.

Add thereto that none of that has any bearing on the astronomical question. It seems someone is eager to hush the astronomical question up by referring to material Sungenis took down - OR someone is paying back for that material by hushing up the astronomical question. Someone not quite content with Sungenis just taking it down, but eager to see Sungenis contradict his past statements before he be allowed to speak on ANY other subject.

I happen to feel myself a victim of similar manners too, and I happen to hate it.

I also wonder why Mark Shea gotwent along with that.

Ross Earl Hoffmann "I think Bob is trying to do the same hatchet job on Karl that traditionalists do to Bugnini!"

It has not occurred to you that Karl is doing a hatchet job on Bob, has it?

Karl, as to your words:

"we're not supposed to critique Catholics who cause scandal"

We might see in a moment whether he is doing so or you are doing so.

"by claiming the Church mandates a belief in geocentrism "

The claim I have seen so far is a bit different:

a) it HAS mandated it
b) it HAS NOT mandated the reverse, only withdrawn mandate on inferior levels, without bothering to check whether the superior level mandates (like 1633) leave that possibility open
c) it HAS by the withdrawal occasioned a Galileo-complex which makes defense of the whole truth more difficult (like Catholics contradicting the 1909 decision or concentrating only on q 8 response in order to not make another St Robert Bellarmine move)
d) geocentrism in itself is NOT scientifically invalidated

"or Catholics who engage in relentless anti-Semitism, which is even more scandalous."

Would depend on what kind of anti-Semitism it is.

Plus that is no longer an issue, since Sungenis took down parts of his earlier publications.

lundi 16 juin 2014

Girls should not attend university in the first place. The only essential education for a woman is a basic academic one, as well that in order to be a successful homemaker. Modern woman is being deceived. A woman can always educate herself, but can't always get married and have children, especially if she wants a large family. Wasted fertility is a great tragedy.

Self-avowed "passionate feminist" Kirstie Allsopp has urged young women to get a flat, a boyfriend, and have babies before embarking on a career.

The woman who fronts Location, Location, Location with Phil Spencer has told the Telegraph that if she had a daughter, her advice would be: "Darling, do you know what? Don't go to university. Start work straight after school, stay at home, save up your deposit – I'll help you, let's get you into a flat. And then we can find you a nice boyfriend and you can have a baby by the time you're 27."

To quote:

"Women are being let down by the system. We should speak honestly and frankly about fertility and the fact it falls off a cliff when you're 35. We should talk openly about university and whether going when you're young, when we live so much longer, is really the way forward. At the moment, women have 15 years to go to university, get their career on track, try and buy a home, and have a baby. That is a hell of a lot to ask someone. As a passionate feminist, I feel we have not been honest enough with women about this issue."

To quote:

"I don't want the next generation of women to go through the heartache that my generation has. At the moment we are changing the natural order of things, with grandparents being much older and everyone squeezed in the middle. Don't think 'my youth should be longer'. Don't go to university because it's an 'experience'. No, it's where you're supposed to learn something! Do it when you're 50!"

PH

I agree.

Anonymised for here

[friend] I agree with you. I don't agree with the lady though on "Get a boyfriend" No Get a husband. That's forever.

I love love love being a housewife. I have had people correct me on my terminology "housewife" because its sexist and have had people tell me when I Say "I am where a woman belongs" they say "Well not belongs...you're just a kid you don't know what you want..." I'm 27 I'm having baby #4. Have a baby by 21. And have 5 by 27 lol

friend

I think it is better to have 5 children by 21. Girls should marry young, and have as many children as possible.

Anonymised for here

Perhaps. I did tell my husband (in jest) the other day that we should have married by the time I was 16 and had our first by the time I was 17. He laughed of course. I was always told its unhealthy for young girls to have babies, though.

He's almost 40 so if he'd have gotten me pregnant by 16 years old he'd have been on the sex offenders list. So its better we waited til I was 18.

friend

It is absolutely not "unhealthy" for girls to have babies, as long as it occurs after menarche. It is much healther, actually, for girls to have babies as soon as they are able, for that it when their bodies are most resilient, etc. God makes no mistakes, and has planned it perfectly. Yes, medical textbooks will tell you young women are at greater risk for miscarriage, and maternal and neonatal death, however, it is just modernist propaganda, and part of their agenda. They do not want women to have more than 1 or 2 children! They push college on women, and careers, and birth control! And then when she wants to have children, she experiences problems with her fertility. You can't go against the natural order of things, and expect good results.

JA

I don't agree with you [friend] there is nothing wrong with waiting for a bit more maturity, as teenage girls hardly have the depth of character these days to face a lifetime of childbearing- let alone one starting at the age of 16! That would mean a huge number of children by the time she is 30- and not everyone is capable of handling such a load as that in life! No shame in waiting a few years to develop ones character and maturity in all areas, spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and so on. This takes a lot of grit to raise a large family in these days, you talk about it so casually you would think it was as easy as rolling off a log!! Don't think this is reality!!

Anonymised for here
I had my first at 21. I am definitely not the "Same" as I was when i got pregnant.

JA

that is a great age to have babies, I almost got married at that age but ran away at the last minute! I was scared due to my parents divorce, sadly!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

By 27? Why not at 17?

" And then we can find you a nice boyfriend and you can have a baby by the time you're 27."

Ah, the Western version of forced marriages (or of making the daughter compliant with arranged ones). That is why she wants daughter to wait till 27! At 17 she would still have her own mind somewhat intact!

"I was always told its unhealthy for young girls to have babies, though"

Two observations: the is true from start of fertility up to 17. Between 17 and 23 it is the ideal age for a first childbirth. After 23 it becomes less and less healthy, so that by 30 it is less healthy than by 13.

Note that "unhealthy" is wrong. I forgot that. Should have said MORE RISKY.

"He's almost 40 so if he'd have gotten me pregnant by 16 years old he'd have been on the sex offenders list."

What Puritan laws you have in Ohio! In S Carolina (I know, I was into a SC girl when she was 16) it would have been legal by 16.

"Yes, medical textbooks will tell you young women are at greater risk for miscarriage, and maternal and neonatal death, however, it is just modernist propaganda, and part of their agenda."

As far as I know, the issue is this: up to 17 one is too narrow for it not to be risky, after 23 one becomes too little resilient.

Childbirth is a risk at any age. Saying it is least so if first birth is 17 - 23 is what my ma was told in Vienna. But that does not mean younger than 17 should be forbidden to marry. In that case old maids past thirty would be as liable to a ban, or more. And obviously, once a first childbirth widens the basin, later births are less risky. AND, this effect is greater, the younger one starts.

"as teenage girls hardly have the depth of character these days to face a lifetime of childbearing"

The loss of the depth of character comes from the loss of opportunity by Modern Feminism on several including legislative levels. But shallowness is just the most common compensation for being denied marriage. And there is this thing about shallowness, it is just superficial, you know!

Some have by age 12 a less shallow character. As witnessed by 3 twelve year olds involved in a sleepover ending with two alive and one stabbed 19 times in the morning. [She survived too.]

I am not sure I would by now, after all a harrassed life, relish an extremely superficial girl, but it would beat marrying a murderress.

Fortunately for the culprits, that is not everyone's outlook.

"That would mean a huge number of children by the time she is 30- and not everyone is capable of handling such a load as that in life!"

It is not a load as much as an asset. And starting at 13 does not mean you get all seven or all fifteen at once before you can handle them.

M McB

Wasted fertility is why the West is dying. Europe, North America, and Australia all report declining birthrates among native populations. Immigrants are pouring into those areas to replace them eventually. And the replacement populations start breeding as young as 12.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Breeding is not an appropriate word about human populations.

But mathematically you are seriously right.

Forcing immigrants to reproduce slower is morally wrong and never justified. What needs to be done is two things - us starting to reproduce quicker, and new immigrants, especially non-Christians, stop coming.

MJO

I would've had a baby by 27 had I been able to get married by then... however, God didn't see fit to bring me the right man until I was 30 and our first wasn't born till I was 32... just sayin' I do agree that women shouldn't go to university, but I don't see anything wrong with them getting a college education, like an online school and get at least a certificate in something so they can contribute to the household or support themselves should something happen to both my husband and me that they couldn't live at home and also gives them something to fall back on should they get married and become a widow w/a family to support. Anyway... also, if I had gotten married and started having children when my period first started, I would've been 9! I think THAT is a little TOO young for ANY culture or time period

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is record early, just as 18 is record late (outside what is considered pathological). Muslims stick with record early. Liberals and Communists with record late. Catholics have stuck with medium. 90 - 95% of all girls have menarché ages 11 - 13. The remaining 10% divide into two batches of 5% OR the remaining 5% into two batches of 2.5%, one down to 9, one up to 18. Now, one can consider God allowed those 5 - 10% to be very much off a rightful limit age, but hardly that it is the case for the remaining 90 - 95%. For boys, the extremes are the same, but the medium is ages 13 - 15.

Mind if I copy without attributing to your name?

Anonymised for here

yes since you've read it

i mean yes you can copy

let me know when then i will take it down. some how some people can see my stuff who are friends with me even if they arent friends with my friends.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The admins in the library are slowing down the process of copying. I am trying to blue before clicking Ctrl C, and the page scrolls up or down beyond my control.

Helen Fraser, chief executive of the Girls' Day School Trust, called Allsopp's comments a "throwback to the 1950s" that went against the modern ethos of female education. "University education is incredibly important for girls. It's the end point of everything we do in our schools, so we would be extremely disappointed if girls left school at 16 and tried to find a flat funded by their mother and waited for the nice boyfriend to turn up.

"People deserve to aspire to having both a fulfilling career and a happy family life. That's what men take for granted and girls who leave university at 22 should not be told by anybody that they have to decide between a career or a relationship and children."

My comment:

a) a mother can stay at university and raise a child

b) 50 is not a good time for university if it is about really learning sth, I am much less good than ten let alone twenty years ago at learning languages

c) nevertheless, Helen Fraser is an idiot, her adoration of "modern ethos of female education" is idiocy, the idea university for everyone is also idiocy.

If everyone has a PhD, having a PhD won't save some from sweeping the streets. Unless heavy immigrationism solves that problem but involves us in a worse one.